[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: AC_CONFIG_HEADERS vs. AC_CONFIG_FILES
From: |
Harlan Stenn |
Subject: |
Re: AC_CONFIG_HEADERS vs. AC_CONFIG_FILES |
Date: |
Mon, 19 Dec 2005 20:11:22 +0000 |
> On Mon, 2005-12-19 at 00:15 +0000, Harlan Stenn wrote:
> > The problem with doing these things in configure is that one must rerun
> > configure to regenerate the file.
> >
> > Sometimes it is better do produce these things in config.status.
>
> There is no need to do so, in this case, because the file is being
> generated when running configure.
For certain definitions of "need", I agree with you.
> "config.status --recheck", runs configure, so changes to configure.ac
> automatically get propagated to the generated file.
For packages that are "big enough" (ie, that have a large/slow run of
"configure"), this is an unnacceptable solution.
H
- AC_CONFIG_HEADERS vs. AC_CONFIG_FILES, David Fang, 2005/12/12
- Re: AC_CONFIG_HEADERS vs. AC_CONFIG_FILES, Ralf Wildenhues, 2005/12/15
- Re: AC_CONFIG_HEADERS vs. AC_CONFIG_FILES, David Fang, 2005/12/17
- Re: AC_CONFIG_HEADERS vs. AC_CONFIG_FILES, David Fang, 2005/12/17
- Re: AC_CONFIG_HEADERS vs. AC_CONFIG_FILES, Ralf Corsepius, 2005/12/18
- Re: AC_CONFIG_HEADERS vs. AC_CONFIG_FILES, Harlan Stenn, 2005/12/18
- Re: AC_CONFIG_HEADERS vs. AC_CONFIG_FILES, David Fang, 2005/12/18
- Re: AC_CONFIG_HEADERS vs. AC_CONFIG_FILES, Harlan Stenn, 2005/12/18
- Re: AC_CONFIG_HEADERS vs. AC_CONFIG_FILES, Ralf Corsepius, 2005/12/19
- Re: AC_CONFIG_HEADERS vs. AC_CONFIG_FILES,
Harlan Stenn <=
- Re: AC_CONFIG_HEADERS vs. AC_CONFIG_FILES, Bruce Korb, 2005/12/19
- Re: AC_CONFIG_HEADERS vs. AC_CONFIG_FILES, Bob Friesenhahn, 2005/12/19
- Re: AC_CONFIG_HEADERS vs. AC_CONFIG_FILES, Bruce Korb, 2005/12/19
- Re: AC_CONFIG_HEADERS vs. AC_CONFIG_FILES, Ralf Corsepius, 2005/12/19
- Re: AC_CONFIG_HEADERS vs. AC_CONFIG_FILES, Harlan Stenn, 2005/12/19
- Re: AC_CONFIG_HEADERS vs. AC_CONFIG_FILES, Ralf Corsepius, 2005/12/19